1 million names, legal threat spur Arctic campaign

Yesterday in Amsterdam, I was served with an urgent fax from Shell, the world’s wealthiest oil company, whom in the past weeks Greenpeace offices have been vigorously and prominently campaigning against in the Save The Arctic drive. The notice was a stern message from Shell lawyers, who are very worried that Greenpeace actions around the world this week “have posed a real risk to Shell retailers... and the general public.” The letter concludes with a warning about commencing “proceedings” against us, at 'any' time in the future.

I don't know about you, but to me there is an incredible irony in being accused of posing risk to the public that seems to have escaped Shell and its lawyers. After all, Shell is a company that itself, in the last week, completely lost control of a massive drillship in Alaska, which it let drift towards shore before apparently grounding on the beach. In Washington State too, engineers have been clamouring to finish Shell’s oil spill response barge, a rusty old thing that has been beset by all manner of serious technical problems, just so the company can forge ahead with its plans to drill the Arctic. This slipshod approach can hardly be held up as the work of a bastion of public safety.

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010, 'spill response' has become something of a buzz term, as well it needs to be. Shell is a company that is responsible for the largest spill in the UK’s recent history in the North Sea, and is currently facing a $5 billion fine for leaking 40,000 barrels of crude into Nigerian waters last December. Now let's talk about public and environmental safety.

The Noble Discoverer, a ship never so undeserving of the designation - there is nothing 'noble' about its activities and that of its company and crew - dates back to 1966 and has slipped anchor before, in New Zealand last year. Talk about being fit for purpose.

And all that’s before Shell even starts drilling in the Arctic, one of the most fragile environments on the planet. The Arctic region is home to indigenous peoples who rely on a healthy ocean to survive, as do certain species of arctic fox, narwhal and the polar bear. This region has remained largely untouched by industrial development, but now one of the world’s most reckless companies wants to drill as many wells as it can before sea ice — and months-long darkness — close off the region for the winter. Their laughable spill response plan includes mention of oil-sniffing dogs, and hand-drawn pictures that would make a seven-year-old blush. Shell is skating on very thin ice indeed.

Meanwhile, across the world Greenpeace activists have been peacefully protesting Shell’s Arctic plans in petrol stations, offices and online. From London to Houston, Budapest to The Hague, hundreds of passionate people have sought to "#TellShell" (our Twitter hash tag) to stay out of this pristine environment in an entirely safe, considered way. Late last night, the campaign tipped 1 million sign ups in a global petition to Save The Arctic at www.savethearctic.org. The result came much quicker than expected, a sign that increasing numbers of people are mobilising against planetary destruction.

So what could really be the motivation behind the flurry of Shell's lawyers? Perhaps Greenpeace is too uncomfortably exposing the truth of Shell's competency to drill the Arctic. Perhaps 1 million names of support and the global media coverage of activism is too much light to bear. Or maybe, just maybe, these are the desperate actions of a company which is a slowly sinking ship, if you will, one whose current business strategy is limited, as more and more people mutiny, realising that we can no longer carry on with business as usual when it comes to plundering the planet.

But if we stop drilling in the Arctic, where will Shell find new reserves of oil? Even Greenpeace relies on oil, by using the Internet, which is powe...

But if we stop drilling in the Arctic, where will Shell find new reserves of oil? Even Greenpeace relies on oil, by using the Internet, which is powered in large part by oil. All the routers of the world require oil to be made, to be shipped, to be powered, so Greenpeace is relying on oil and thus relying on companies like Shell for it's continued existance. We are trying to cut the branch we are sitting on by protesting Shell, are we not? I don't understand this campaign. Certainly you aren't saying you don't want Greenpeace to use the Internet, to stop using it, so as not to consume any more oil products? How would we communicate without oil? I don't have those answers, but I do see why Shell needs to drill in the Artctic. Accidents and spills happen. Burgers get dropped on the floor in restaurants, cars hit people, it's a fact of life, we can't prevent that from happening. The only solution I see is to cut our dependence on oil, and Greenpeace doesn't seem to be doing that either.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Ivan
says:

@Pepijn

Couldn't find a penguin in Den Haag, hugged a cat instead. Still thinking of Greenpeace as a weird mix of ignorant bigots and...

@Pepijn

Couldn't find a penguin in Den Haag, hugged a cat instead. Still thinking of Greenpeace as a weird mix of ignorant bigots and attention seeking hypocrites. Been of that opinion ever since their ignorant claims and direct lies during Brent Spar saga. Any further suggestions how to switch off one's head and just start believing GP clowns? Would hugging a rat help or should I go straight for lobotomy?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) DevilMayCry
says:

@Pepijn
I hugged a cat. Now I'm wearing plasters on my face and arms. It didn't like being hugged.
Thanks a lot.
My opinion...

@Pepijn
I hugged a cat. Now I'm wearing plasters on my face and arms. It didn't like being hugged.
Thanks a lot.
My opinion? Greenpeace is valiant but ultimately futile. It's also unreasonably biased against nuclear energy, and has some very, very, strange views on certain subjects - see the discussions on Obama and the Pope...
May the God-Emperor watch over you all

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) /
says:

Have you contemplated what will happen if GP ARE successful in diverting Shell from their plans in the arctic? The oil will stay there, a temptation a...

Have you contemplated what will happen if GP ARE successful in diverting Shell from their plans in the arctic? The oil will stay there, a temptation and a prize until some other company from any number of less desirable eco-louts drill for it. All oil companies have dirty hands, but you could easily be replacing Shell with much worse. We're in an oil-fuelled world, and truth is we shall need it for many years to come. Drilling for every last drop is totally inevitable. Invest time and energy in creating viable alternatives....

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) Lost P.A.W.S
says:

I agree with" unregistered" posted 7/8/12. What do they think is going to happen when all of our oil reserves have finished? Surely, with ...

I agree with" unregistered" posted 7/8/12. What do they think is going to happen when all of our oil reserves have finished? Surely, with the billions being made by these Giant companies they should be already investigating viable alternatives. There are a variety but it appears to me it is easier to drill reap the rewards now, disadvantages later! I suppose they assume that it will be in the future when it does run out they won't be around to find out. NEWS FLASH, This could happen any day the fact is they can only estimate how much oil is left under the sea bed. I don't understand why we have not invented anything already that is common day place for running technology, cars, planes etc with. I believe Henry Ford used hemp to construct and to fuel his cars! Common people there are million of brilliant minds out there how have they not intented something with staying power, or even synthetic fuel for our engines. Common Apple move into greener pastors and invent some synthetic biofuels we could get apps free when refilling with your fuels or something along those lines! I think we are going to have to fight harder to make people realise that the arctic is a unique place on this planet, although I never plan to go there, I belive it should be untouched. It seems everywhere we go we can only destroy environments. Is that going to be the legacy of our race! I vote Shell pull out their "proverbial finger" and get inventing before it is all to late and life as we know it comes to a standstill because we have run out! And no it might not take a few decades to get there, it is nearer than you think! Green peace, while I get busy trying to save a few small animals from being neglected and abused, I want to thank you for being my voice in starting on the bigger things like our environment and working our way down the ladder to eventually saving ourselves from a devastating fate... Sorry to be morbid but most people are so busy in their little daily lives just trying to keep up with the "Jones' " they can't see what will happen in the near future....